ENOUGH. When you all have your Law Licenses (or at least 2 Semesters in Constitutional Law), you can discuss the Supreme Court INTELLIGENTLY.

MEANWHILE..........................

Two U.S. Top Court Members Say No Politics in Rulings
December 13, 2000 3:44 pm EST

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas sought to make clear on Wednesday that politics plays no role in the Supreme Court's decision-making, a day after the deeply divided court effectively gave Republican George W. Bush the presidency.

Rehnquist and Thomas, both appointed by Republican presidents, were part of the court's conservative majority in the 5-4 ruling that said recounts of ballots in Florida could not resume. The decision caused Democrat Al Gore to decide to end his fight for the White House, Democratic sources said.

In an appearance on the C-SPAN cable television network, Thomas was asked by high school students how party affiliation influences decision-making at the court. "Zero," he replied. "I've been here nine years. I haven't seen it."

Rehnquist then showed up in the Supreme Court's public affairs room, where reporters watched Thomas on television.

Asked about Thomas' remark and whether it was especially appropriate in view of what just happened in the "Bush v. Gore" case, Rehnquist replied, "Absolutely." He paused and repeated, "absolutely" and then left the room.

The Supreme Court had been at the center of the legal battle surrounding the disputed presidential election in Florida. This month, it issued two rulings in the dispute and twice heard historic oral arguments from lawyers representing the Texas governor and Gore.

The ruling drew impassioned dissents by the court's four liberals, who agreed the recounts could resume. Justice Stephen Breyer said, "We risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation."

While the Supreme Court did not permit television cameras in the courtroom for the dramatic arguments, the justices for the first time allowed audiotapes to be released immediately after the 90-minute historic sessions.

REHNQUIST SAYS AUDIOTAPES MAY BE USED AGAIN

Rehnquist told reporters that he was "surprised" at the level of interest in the audiotapes, and said the court in the future might release tapes "in rare instances."

In the late-night ruling on Tuesday, the court split along ideological conservative and liberal lines in deciding that new recounts should not be ordered to remedy the constitutional problem with the earlier Florida vote counting.

The court, in an unsigned opinion, overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering the recounts, holding that the decision violates the U.S. Constitution's protections of due process and equal protection under the law, because there were no uniform rules for counting the ballots.

The court said there was not enough time to conduct the recounts in a way that would pass constitutional muster before the Electoral College meets on Monday to pick the next president.

At the beginning of the C-SPAN session, Thomas said the past few weeks have been "exhausting," but what has happened "shows the strength of our system of government."

He did not directly comment on the decision, but emphasized the justices do not act in their own "self-interest" and seek to fulfill their judicial oaths.

"Don't try to apply the rules of the political world to this institution," Thomas told the students. Thomas said he never has heard a discussion of "partisan politics within this court."

Besides Breyer, the other dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Breyer and Ginsburg are the only members of the court named by a Democrat -- President Clinton. Souter was named to the court by Bush's father, former President George Bush.

Opposing more recounts were Rehnquist, Thomas and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Thomas also was appointed to the court by Bush's father.

Legal experts questioned how badly the court's reputation had been damaged.

Georgetown University law professor Michael Seidman said, "It is a decision that history will see as further confirmation of the partisan political nature of the Supreme Court."

But A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia said, "I think the court will take a hit in the short term, but in the long term the court's reputation will survive unscathed."

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Answers

Cpr:

But A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia said, "I think the court will take a hit in the short term, but in the long term the court's reputation will survive unscathed."

I could be wrong and you could be right; but it seems to me that they may have just started it. It doesn't seem to me that history will treat this decision kindly. But more likely, it will be forgotten outside of law journals. The political and social impact will be greater.

Or so it seems.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Rumor has it that when the C-SPAN interview was done, and the cameras were off, Clarence Thomas said "Al Gore is a honky and a Democrat and he can just kiss my ass."

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Brer Clarence be speaking the troof, Mon.

As the poor old lady that lives in one of albore's rental shacks. ;

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Boy, we've hammered the "objectivity" and "fairness" angles here to death, but the only question that counts is, IF the two sides -- Gore and Bush -- had been reversed, all other circumstances being equal, would the Supremes have ruled the same way? The answer is obviously "yes."

This wasn't a "Repub vs. Dem" split on that court. It was a split between conservative and liberal.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000